Sentences with phrase «global change science because»

This insight, backed by the palaeo - climatic record (see Chapter 2, Section 2.4), is a new challenge for global change science because now thresholds have to be identified and their values need to be estimated using the entire hierarchy of climate models.

Not exact matches

Because Troeltsch, at the beginning of this century, was keenly aware of many trends that became apparent to most observers only at its end: the collapse of Eurocentrism; the perceived relativity of all historical events and knowledge (including scientific knowledge); an awareness that Christianity is relative to its Western, largely European history and environment; the emergence of a profound global pluralism; the central role of practice in theology; the growing impact of the social sciences on our view of the world and of ourselves; and dramatic changes in the role of religious institutions and religious thought.

But because of the necessary caveats that must be applied due to the state of the science I am starting to feel unable to say much about climate change apart from: «The increase in CO2 will very probably cause an overall increase in Global Average Temperature.

It's an important moment for this message to sink in, because the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, meeting this week in Bangkok, is getting ready to dive in on a special report on the benefits of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above Earth's temperature a century or more ago and emissions paths to accomplish that (to learn what this murky number means in relation to the more familiar 2 - degree limit click here for a quick sketch, basic science, deep dive).

I think the distortion of science is greater in global climate change articles because there is no government agency taking responsiblity for providing essential information and education for the media and public, in the U.S..

Global Warming Science Just Because It's Snowing Out Doesn't Mean Global Warming is Fake, Say It With Me People Just 57 % of US Residents See Evidence of Global Warming & 23 % Know About Cap - and - Trade Global Warming Changes to Snowmelt Patterns in Western US Could Have Larger Impact Than Previously Thought

An article in Science (11 Nov 2005) by Scott L. Wing, et al., concludes:... «The PETM provides an important analog to present - day anthropogenic global warming, because the two episodes are inferred to have similar rates and magnitudes of carbon release and climate change (6)».

I suspect some are still stalling because they either want yet more science or for global change to be more obvious outside their own windows, before doing anything.

We're not offering a «counter-claim» about the science, because our position is that even the concrete, incontrovertible, unassailable fact of human influence on global warming and climate change does not, by itself, make a case for action.

Though not CMOS's first public statement, it was one of the most «vocal about climate change of late» due to the fact «that Canada's new Conservative government does not support the Kyoto Protocol for lower emissions of greenhouse gases, and opposed stricter emissions for a post-Kyoto agreement at a United Nations meeting in Bonn in May [2006]» and because «a small, previously invisible group of global warming sceptics called the Friends of Science are suddenly receiving attention from the Canadian government and media,» Leahy wrote.

Perhaps it is because during the Obama years, work on climate change issues all started from a mandated conclusion: That manmade global warming was settled science and that it was bad and getting worse.

Meanwhile, let's change the subject so the real problem of creating an economy that is going to suffer unimaginably from governmental controls on energy in America because we are so cocksure of global warming because we have succeeded brainwashing enough people with bad science and propaganda that it is probably now inevitable.

In a sharp change from its cautious approach in the past, the National Academy of Sciences on Wednesday called for taxes on carbon emissions, a cap - and - trade program for such emissions or some other strong action to curb runaway global warming.Such actions, which would increase the cost of using coal and petroleum — at least in the immediate future — are necessary because «climate change is occurring, the Earth is warming... concentrations of carbon dioxide are increasing, and there are very clear fingerprints that link [those effects] to humans,» said Pamela A. Matson of Stanford University, who chaired one of five panels organized by the academy at the request of Congress to look at the science of climate change and how the nation should respond.

Respondents were picked because they had authored articles with the key words «global warming» and / or «global climate change», covering the 1991 — 2011 period, via the Web of Science, or were included the climate scientist database assembled by Jim Prall, or just by a survey of peer reviewed climate science arScience, or were included the climate scientist database assembled by Jim Prall, or just by a survey of peer reviewed climate science arscience articles.

In a memo to the Vice President s office, Mr. Cooney explained: We plan to begin to refer to this study in Administration communications on the science of global climate change because it contradicts a dogmatic view held by many in the climate science community that the past century was the warmest in the past millennium and signals of human induced global warming.

Anybody who makes a presentation on Climate Change or Global Warming should be permitted to state categorically that Climate Change is real, and it's happening now, and it's our fault, and it's going to get more serious, and possibly even very serious indeed, and nobody should challenge that, because those are not simply «claims», they are the science.

These were: the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) hypothesis is invalid from a scientific viewpoint because it fails a number of critical comparisons with available observable data, the draft TSD was seriously dated and the updates made to an abortive 2007 version of the draft TSD used to prepare it were inadequate, and EPA should conduct an independent analysis of the science of global warming rather than adopting the conclusions of outside groups such as the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and U.S. Government reports based on IPCC's reGlobal Warming (CAGW) hypothesis is invalid from a scientific viewpoint because it fails a number of critical comparisons with available observable data, the draft TSD was seriously dated and the updates made to an abortive 2007 version of the draft TSD used to prepare it were inadequate, and EPA should conduct an independent analysis of the science of global warming rather than adopting the conclusions of outside groups such as the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and U.S. Government reports based on IPCC's reglobal warming rather than adopting the conclusions of outside groups such as the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and U.S. Government reports based on IPCC's reports.

Had science chosen 60 years average for climate, there would have been no alarm over global cooling of global warming, because the average would not have changed significantly.

The reason half of Americans doubt the science on climate change isn't because they are stupid or misled by the fossil fuels lobby, but because the global warming issue has now become as much as part of America's culture wars as abortion or creationism.

Translating the above to climate science, if you tell me that in 100 years earth inhabited by your children is going to hell in a handbasket, because our most complicated models built with all those horrendously complicated equestions you can find in math, show that the global temperatures will be 10 deg higher and icecaps will melt, sea will invade land, plant / animal ecosystem will get whacked out of order causing food supply to be badly disrupted, then I, without much climate science expertise, can easily ask you the following questions and scrutinize the results: a) where can I see that your model's futuristic predictions about global temp, icecaps, eco system changes in the past have come true, even for much shorter periods of time, like say 20 years, before I take this for granted and make radical changes in my life?

What we should take away from the whole sorry episode is that this zeal for challenging the character of climate - change skeptics — while excusing both the political / financial connections, and sloppy science, of true believers because their cause is supposedly noble — represents the final degeneration of the global warming movement into pure politics.

On February 11th, Center for Regulatory Effectiveness requested that the United States Global Change Research Program and the Office of Science and Technology withdraw the First National Assessment on Global Climate Change because it violates the objectivity, utility and reproducibility requirements of the Data Quality Act and OMB's guidelines implementing the Act.

Duffy suggested that the Goddard Institute deliberately tried to keep the change quiet because it undermined the case of what he calls «climate change orthodoxy», and claimed that «the discovery that it got one of the central data sets of global warming science and debate wrong is embarrassing and disturbing».

When the IPCC's «science» portion of the Assessment was released last fall, it was immediately faulted for being based upon climate models which have greatly overpredicted the amount of climate change that has been occurring largely because they completely missed the slowdown of the rate of global warming that has taken place over the past two decades.

News Ltd columnist Andrew Bolt, a regular denier of the science of human - caused climate change, said Dr Salby had been «persecuted» because he had «challenged the global warming faith».

I got into climate science, not because I was surprised by how much the global temperatures were changing, but because I was astonished by how little they change.

Lester Kwiatkowski − a researcher with both the University of Exeter in the UK and the Carnegie Institution for Science in the US − and colleagues report in Nature Climate Change that human - induced global warming because of the burning of fossil fuels could raise temperatures enough by 2050 to bleach and degrade 90 % of the world's coral reefs.

An example of an intent to displace established climate science is the incorrect contrarian «basic» fringe claim that variations in solar activity are mostly responsible for recent global warming / climate change; this contrarian claim is demonstrably wrong because it disagrees with the data on solar activity.